Windows 8’s locked bootloaders: much ado about nothing, or the end of the world as we know it?

Microsoft's secure boot policy for Windows 8 has some Linux advocates up in …

Microsoft has published the hardware requirements that manufacturers must follow if they want to slap a "Designed for Windows 8" sticker onto their systems. In among many innocuous requirements—multitouch systems must support at least five points of touch, there must be at least 10 GB of free space available to the user, and more—are a set of requirements for Windows 8 systems' firmware. These requirements have reignited Linux users' fears that they will be locked out of Windows 8 hardware.

The concerns revolve around the use of a new feature called UEFI Secure Boot. All Windows 8 systems that meet Microsoft's certification requirements must use UEFI firmware with Secure Boot enabled.

UEFI: a BIOS fit for the 21st century

Unified Extensible Firmware Interface is a relatively modern replacement for the ancient PC BIOS; it handles basic tasks such as initializing the machine, probing its hardware, and passing control to an operating system. Unlike the BIOS, which was intimately coupled to the vagaries of x86 processors and tended to be both slow and difficult to extend, UEFI is designed to be a processor-independent, modular, extensible system capable of much faster boot-ups.

UEFI's predecessor, EFI, was developed for x86 and Itanium systems by Hewlett-Packard and Intel. In 2005, UEFI supplanted EFI, and added support for x86-64 and, with its most recent update, ARM systems. EFI and UEFI have taken a long time to penetrate the market. EFI was never used much—Itanium systems, a handful of oddball x86 PCs, and Intel-powered Macs all used it—but UEFI has started to become widespread. The need to replace the PC BIOS has become acute, since it cannot boot from hard disks that are larger than 2 TB, and so the industry has at last abandoned the BIOS: most motherboards for Intel's Sandy Bridge processors use UEFI.

Securing the boot process

Since UEFI's first version (2.0, released in 2006), it has supported the use of digital signatures to ensure that UEFI drivers and UEFI programs are not tampered with. In version 2.2, released in 2008, digital signature support was extended so that operating system loaders—the pieces of code supplied by operating system developers to actually load and start an operating system—could also be signed.

The digital signature mechanism uses standard public key infrastructure technology. The UEFI firmware stores one or more trusted certificates. Signed software (whether it be a driver, a UEFI program, or an operating system loader) must have a signature that can be traced back to one of these trusted certificates. If there is no signature at all, if the signature is faulty, or if the signature does not correspond to any of the certificates, the system will refuse to boot.

The purpose of all this is, as the name would imply, to provide security. Windows itself ensures that its own executables (and, on 64-bit versions, all drivers) contain valid signatures, in an effort to ensure that malware and rootkits have not tampered with any critical system files.

However, the weak link in this chain is the initial operating system loader; if this is modified so that it no longer validates digital signatures, it could load a modified operating system kernel. There are extant, real-world rootkits that do just this: they modify the Windows boot loader so that it no longer verifies the integrity of the files that it loads. This allows the rootkit to modify the Windows kernel so that it can evade detection. Secure boot stops this kind of attack in its tracks.

For a Windows 8 system to pass Microsoft's certification criteria it will not only have to use UEFI; it will also have to have secure boot enabled. This means that every Windows 8 system must include the Microsoft certificate in its list of trusted certificates, and it must verify that the Windows 8 operating system loader is untampered with.

That core requirement is common to both x86 and ARM platforms. The details, however, are very different between the two.

x86: freedom and flexibility

x86 Windows 8 systems must allow users to add and remove certificates from the firmware's certificate store. For example, a Linux vendor could provide a signed operating system loader and corresponding certificate: all x86 Windows 8 systems must permit users to install such certificates. Microsoft calls this "custom mode", in contrast to "standard mode", that includes only the Microsoft certificate.

x86 Windows 8 systems must also allow secure boot to be turned off completely, so that no certificate verification is performed at all.

UEFI allows the ability to drop back to mimicking BIOS, to allow UEFI systems to start pre-UEFI operating systems. This is done through a combination of running the "option ROMs" embedded into many components, and Compatibility Support Modules (CSMs) to hand over control to a legacy operating system.

Windows 8 machines using x86 processors can offer this kind of backwards compatibility, but they must not invoke it without explicit user action; in other words, this "BIOS mode" must be explicitly enabled. Further, if secure boot is enabled, the system must not enter BIOS mode at all. Systems with 32-bit Windows can even ship in BIOS mode by default, though they must still be capable of UEFI mode.

This combination of options should settle most concerns that were raised when news of the secure boot requirement first broke. On x86 systems, Windows 8 stands as no impediment to using non-Windows operating systems. Indeed, Microsoft's rules ensure that vendors will make it possible to securely boot operating systems other than Windows: system builders will have no choice but to allow system owners to install their own certificates.

The rules should also ensure the system remains secure; in all cases, weakening the system's integrity (by adding certificates or disabling secure boot entirely) should require physical console access, and shouldn't be possible programmatically. In other words, there should be no way for a rootkit to silently add its own certificate to the trusted store or otherwise defeat the system.

ARM: restriction and control

The story for ARM is rather different, however. On ARM Windows 8 systems, Microsoft's certification rules prohibit entering "custom mode"—users must not be able to add certificates of their own—and prohibit disabling secure boot completely. The ARM systems will all require the use of a signed operating system loader, and that operating system loader must be signed by Microsoft.

Microsoft's rules also specify that a secure boot failure must be fatal; there must be no option to override the failure and choose to boot the untrusted operating system.

Further, manufacturers will be prohibited from shipping updates to their firmware that relax these restrictions; all firmware updates must be protected with digital signatures and must preserve the secure boot settings. They should also prevent the installation of older firmware versions—for example, downgrading the firmware to switch to a version with a known security flaw—though the manufacturer can allow this particular constraint to be manually overridden.

Taken together, the situation for ARM machines is essentially the diametric opposite of the situation for x86 systems. The x86 requirements give the user the power to do what they like; boot an operating system of their choosing, and do so either securely or insecurely. On ARM? They'll boot Windows, and they'll do so securely.

This leaves exactly two options for booting any other operating system: find a security flaw in the firmware, and hope it doesn't get patched, or hope that Microsoft will produce a suitable boot loader. The former is plausible—it does happen from time to time. The latter is highly unlikely.

You don't have to be open to be successful

Microsoft's stance is not without precedent. Locking appliance-like systems is commonplace. The best-selling tablet in the world, by a large margin, has a locked bootloader. The iPad can run Apple's operating system, and no other. While occasional flaws in the iPad's software and bootloader might from time to time enable that situation to be challenged, such challenges come in spite of Apple's efforts, not because of them.

The iPad is not unique in this regard, either; the ill-fated BlackBerry PlayBook shipped with a locked bootloader. So did most Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1s. Asus' Eee Pad Transformer Prime also has a locked bootloader, though Asus says it will relent and provide a tool to unlock the bootloader soon. Barnes and Noble's NOOK Tablet is also locked.

Locking isn't universal, mind; some, such as the Motorola Xoom, can be unlocked with the manufacturer's consent (though doing so will typically void the product's warranty). HTC has recently released a program to unlock the bootloader of its Android smartphones, again without warranty or support.

What's more, ARM-powered Windows 8 machines won't be confined to the narrow tablet category. Qualcomm has announced plans to produce thin-and-light Windows 8 laptops that use its Snapdragon ARM processors.

Microsoft's decision certainly isn't universally popular, with software freedom advocates and Linux supporters both coming out against Microsoft's policy, claiming that it deprives users of these machines of some essential right. Others argue that since there's no other operating system that will run on Windows 8 ARM machines there's nothing lost by not being able to disable secure boot, and hence the entire fuss is a non-issue.

Competing concerns

The discussion tends to conflate practical concerns—is disabling secure boot useful—with (perceived) moral imperatives (should end-users have the right to install whatever they like?), questions of marketability (will people reject ARM machines that do not support the installation of other operating systems) and ontological concerns over what it means to be a computer, and the implications that has for our expectations.

In a practical sense, there is some truth to the argument that it doesn't matter. The main reason that people unlock the bootloaders of their Android devices is so that they can run Android kernels other than those that their device's manufacturer has specifically blessed. Android is substantially open source, and so third parties are able to compile their own kernel binaries. Since these third-party kernels lack any digital signature, a bootloader that's locked and requires signature is a serious impediment.

Windows 8, of course, won't be open source. Windows 8 users might potentially want to "root" their operating systems, to for example allow side-loading of applications, but Windows 8 won't ever have a community of developers producing third-party kernels. As such, there's no direct equivalent to the Android scenario.

In principle, some users might want to buy a Windows 8 ARM machine and then install Android, Ubuntu, or some other operating system on it. Even if secure boot could be disabled, it's unlikely that this could be done overnight; unlike x86 systems, which all look more or less identical from an operating system's perspective, ARM has few conventions: any Android port would have to be tailored to accommodate the particular vagaries of the boot process and hardware capabilities that ARM Windows 8 machines have (though it is likely that all Windows 8 ARM machines will be consistent in this regard, in spite of using processors from different companies).

As the efforts to port Android to the HP TouchPad have shown, it's likely that a suitable Android port would be assembled—if only it could boot. The secure boot mandate puts an end to such efforts even before they have started. As such, this position, while accurate enough in the short term, looks increasingly circular as the timescale increases—the only reason that there would be no other operating systems would be because secure boot precluded the development of other operating systems.

Nonetheless, even if such an Android port were available, it's not likely to have mass appeal. It would be of great interest to a minority of users, and of no interest at all to the great majority—just as is already the case with dual-booting or running a custom Android build. As such, it's hard to imagine any significant impact on Windows 8's sales as a result of this decision. The ability to run other operating systems is barely even a consideration on PCs, let alone appliances.

Bulletproof reliability

And "appliance" certainly seems to be what Microsoft is aiming for with these rules: robust, essentially single-purpose devices that just work with no fuss or unnecessary complexity. These devices need to be bulletproof, and that means not only protecting against errant and hostile software—hence the use of the Windows 8 Store for application distribution—but also against errant and hostile users. No matter how misguided or malicious a user is, it should never be possible for them to render an appliance unbootable. This is what the iPad does so well, and what Redmond is trying to emulate for Windows 8.

Awkwardly, however, this stands in contrast to Microsoft's historical position on the tablet. The company has long maintained that the tablet is a kind of PC, and at least for x86 machines, it seems to be sticking to that mantra. For ARM, however, that appears to have fallen by the wayside; ARM machines will be less complex but also less capable. They won't offer the full power of the PC.

Appliance-level robustness has certainly proven popular in tablets. It might play less well with devices such as Qualcomm's ARM laptops—particularly if some or all ARM systems retain access to the Windows desktop. We think that there are good reasons to retain the desktop on at least some ARM machines (as well as good reasons to exclude it from others), and a hypothetical ARM laptop would certainly be a good candidate for retaining the traditional desktop.

Conventional form factors and a conventional desktop might in turn lead to a demand for conventional capabilities, including the ability to mess with the operating system (and even break it). Just as with dual-booting, this is a niche demand, but with the enormous breadth and diversity of the PC, even a small niche can be a lot of people.

The free software community would argue that this kind of restriction on how a device can be used is an unacceptable curtailment of user freedom, and that if you bought a device you should have free rein over both the hardware itself and the software running on it. Certainly, the argument that intuitively a computer that you own should run the software of your choosing and be beholden to you and not some third party is compelling.

But in practice, people are willing to forfeit such freedoms if it is useful to do so. The inability to, for example, install arbitrary software on an iPad is a negative, but the greatly reduced amount of malicious software that results from this restriction is a great positive. Tales of end-users doing dangerous or destructive things to their own computers are rampant, and there is a genuine question to be asked here: are these people better served by a full-power "free" computer, or a restricted "non-free" computing appliance that will always work? Computers are meant to be useful, functional items, and for many, freedom hinders that goal more than it ever helped it.

In spite of this, we might still prefer a solution of the kind used by Google for its Chromebooks. Chromebooks are highly restricted, including a bootloader that will only run Google-signed kernels. However, they can be de-restricted through a combination of flicking a physical switch and entering certain software commands. Further, a second physical button will force them into recovery mode, in which they revert to secure boot, and must be provided with USB media containing a new operating system with a valid signature.

There's no way in which the security systems can be defeated accidentally, nor any way that they can be defeated by malicious software. The Chromebook approach also ensures that systems can be robustly recovered. It arguably achieves all the security and reliability requirements that Microsoft might have, while still keeping everyone happy.

A question of influence

Even if Microsoft's position doesn't change, the impact its rules will have may prove to be negligible in practice. x86 hardware will retain all the freedom and flexibility that users of alternative operating systems need. Unlocked ARM hardware is also going to continue to be widely available; it'll just come with Android rather than Windows. Given Android's much greater strength in the tablet market, it's all but inevitable that Windows 8-only hardware will be a minority. Microsoft doesn't have the market dominance to take away everyone's ability to use alternative operating systems.

If every future PC and tablet were restricted so that it could only boot a Microsoft operating system, there would indeed be the end of the world as we know it; it would fundamentally alter the nature of the PC, converting it from the supremely flexible device that it is into a well-decorated prison cell. As it is, it will simply be a choice that buyers have to make for themselves. There will be options that are locked down, including the iPad and Windows 8 ARM tablets. There will be options that are not. The decision as to which is more important—freedom or reliability—will lie with the user.

Say it with me now: Secure Boot is in the UEFI spec. Microsoft is not doing anything. If there is a detriment to linux, it will be OEMs that are at fault for not providing the ability to unlock the boot sequence or allow importing of custom keys.

I think all the FUD spreaders are done talking about x86 systems and have moved on to an actual valid point talking about ARM systems only as MS requires that you can't use custom certs and can't disable Secure Boot. Effectively locking down the machine from customization.

x86 Windows 8 systems must allow users to add and remove certificates from the firmware's certificate store. … Microsoft calls this "custom mode", in contrast to "standard mode", that includes only the Microsoft certificate.

x86 Windows 8 systems must also allow secure boot to be turned off completely, so that no certificate verification is performed at all.

This is good news, but can I have a citation? Preferably from the Microsoft website.

The opening sentence of the article links to the documentation in question.

I think the wording there is more "microsoft will allow OEMs to (oh so very optionally) provide UEFI implementations that allow third party certificates to be installed, or turned of signed boot completely".

I don't know why you think that. The document is freely available to all, the wording is clear and unambiguous (on this point, at least), and your opinion is simply wrong.

Gah, i must be more sleepy than i feel. I could have sworn the article did not read "must" regarding "custom mode".

So what is wrong with that? Could it be due to a trade off between the security and simplicity of your device and the ability to run any damn thing you want?

Not saying I completely agree with the direction things are going, but honestly I don't really give a rats ass if my phone can be rooted or jailbroken. The days of me wanting to tinker with computers in that manner is long gone. I just want my devices to fucking work.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know that. I guess now that you are done tinkering with your computers we better inform all the kids willing to learn that it's over. I guess than it is ok to lock everything down now that you are not into it anymore.

What are you talking about? This is the problem with the FOSS religion. If you don't like the product than don't buy it but you don't get to dictate what I and the rest of the heathens want. There is no mandate from the goverenment requiring you to buy these computers. MS is not the goverenment. MS does not have an army or police force. You don't like the product that their partners and MS put together don't buy it. If you are able to convert another half percent of the market maybe someone will bother to cater to the one percenters.

This has nothing to do with religion. This has everything to do with Microsoft attempting to restrict the market in tablets. Just because a vendor, rightly, knows that they need to support Microsoft's OS, doesn't mean they should be precluded from allow the user to install something else. Or even have the capability to dual boot. Or a variety of other options that Microsoft is taking away from the device vendors, just so they can have a compatibility sticker.

Peter, I think this is a fine and balanced essay that puts this issue into perspective. Love or hate Microsoft, they seem to be trying to strike a balance with the requirements (in my opinion). I think you correctly identified the pros and cons, and the stakeholders for each view.

Like I said in the other thread, Samsung is not going to make Android tablets and Windows tablets out of completely different hardware. You can just buy the Android one. They will be identical except the OS on it. If Samsung stops making the Android one, then the majority of consumers will have spoken, and unfortunately for you, you will be in the minority.

Ok, so...how many phones have an identical hardware, and both have Android & Windows Phone version available? I'll bet you it's very, very few. Maybe none. In fact, I'd guess there will be very few, or no, devices that come in both Windows 8 ARM & Android flavors.

Actually this is how Samsung is already doing their Windows phones. The Focus was a clone of the Galaxy, and the Focus S is a clone of the Galaxy S2 other than the specific chipsets required for each OS.

Freedom of what, exactly? Freedom to root my ARM-based phone--something neither myself nor 99.5% of the worlds population has any intent to do?

Computers are no longer special. They are appliances. They are no more cool than a wash machine or maybe a microwave. You don't root your wash machine and you don't mod your microwave, so why the hell would you root or mod your phone?

I find this a very perceptive comment. Lets take the iPad as an example. It is a marvelous, magical machine that so long as you do with it what Apple wants you to do it is safe, smooth and a wonderful experience. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. It is a gadget.

On the other hand, it is a computer, and with that comes the expectation of flexibility, of using the machine in novel ways. Can I program it for an output to my weather station? Can I learn C on it? Can I load up the SSD with my data files to take back to the lab? Can I put on a new OS? Delete files? No, No and No. Seen as a computer this device is terribly crippled.

So, is the iPad a gadget? Yes. Is it a computer? Yes, but you can't use that potential because of decisions made at Apple. Personally, this limitation drives me nuts (I got mine as a very thoughtful gift), but most folks are happy with the gadget.

What I am concerned about is moving into a world in which machines which permit experimentation are too expensive and too far behind the curve for anyone to wish to purchase them.

There is no stopping it... The market has long saturated the power user crowd, all the growth will come from toy computers like the iPad. Our high end market is still bigger than it ever was and everything is cheaper than it ever was.

this should seriously freak everyone out! You wont be able to install the OS of YOUR choice, because the government controls the certificate authorities. And someone is going to decide that the OS you use gives you too much freedom, and therefore should be illegal, and not get signed by the trusted CA's.

Massive big brother issues flying down the pipe. Buckle up for some serious oppression.

I'd love if these tech sites would actually dig deeper into this, rather than just dump these articles here for link bait to incite the small Linux crowd (brilliant by the way - two articles in the same day on the same subject, by two different authors, both with hundreds of comments - well done!)

Is there a reason ARM needs to be locked? I would assume it has to do with DRM - Netflix, Amazon. etc. All of the tablets with access to these services are locked.

In the previous post about this, someone mentioned that they didn't think ARM had the ability to make certain areas of Flash read only like x86 does. That could be the answer right there.

Rather than these sites just dumping these articles with a copy and paste out of a license agreement, it would be nice if they actually investigated the reasoning as to why this decision was made.

this should seriously freak everyone out! You wont be able to install the OS of YOUR choice, because the government controls the certificate authorities. And someone is going to decide that the OS you use gives you too much freedom, and therefore should be illegal, and not get signed by the trusted CA's.

Massive big brother issues flying down the pipe. Buckle up for some serious oppression.

Ok...

Locked Secure Boot = Orwellian dystopia

Seems legit!

Is Apple killing democracy to or its just evil MS? I mean its not like OEMs already prefer to lock their devices running android! Oh, wait...

this should seriously freak everyone out! You wont be able to install the OS of YOUR choice, because the government controls the certificate authorities. And someone is going to decide that the OS you use gives you too much freedom, and therefore should be illegal, and not get signed by the trusted CA's.

Massive big brother issues flying down the pipe. Buckle up for some serious oppression.

Ok...

Locked Secure Boot = Orwellian dystopia

Seems legit!

Is Apple killing democracy too or its just evil MS? I mean its not like OEMs already prefer to lock their devices running android! Oh, wait...

Well the removal of options certainly promotes stupid even if it doesnt get Julia sent to room 101.

It does make sense from a business standpoint though, its a pitty the business standpoint seems to be the 'correct' stand point in our world.

The novelty of computing is gone. Want something novel to fiddle with, work in a different industry because computing and computers are virtually a solved problem.

Yeah, no. Computing and computers are just getting started. You seem to have a tragic case of myopia.

And good job on the edit, I think I'll keep it for posterity.

ROTFL. Yah I went to reply to that comment and was...wait...what? Where did it go. A comment like that borders on the unreal....solved problem....really. Didn't realize we've hit LCARS reliability already. Schweet.

I blame Apple. I've been saying for years they are a cancer on the tech industry and the proof is in their products. They are going for this appliance device because such devices are considered throw away devices that can be repurchased once every year or so for cheap. They have been trying to define the industry to this so they can leech yearly sales out of people. Oh look new camera...purchase....oh look new screen...purchase...oh look the OS no longer supports that feature on my device...purchase. That last one. THAT is why general computing is a necessity. It keeps jackwagons like Apple and soon to be Microsoft from pulling this crap. Apple started a dangerous trend and needs to be beaten down for it. I could list a dozen other "trends" they started that are a detriment on the industry but lets focus on something topic related eh?

Well the removal of options certainly promotes stupid even if it doesnt get Julia sent to room 101.

It does make sense from a business standpoint though, its a pitty the business standpoint seems to be the 'correct' stand point in our world.

There is no removal of anything since most ARM tablets are already locked down. If they did this for x86 tablets (real computers) it would be a different story. Ill be buying an x86 tablet and Ill boot whatever I want on it like any self respecting power user. Would you buy an iPad? I wouldn't.

So Microsoft is doing what Apple is doing? OS locked to hardware. If you are an Apple fanboi you better not be bashing Microsoft here! ;-)

Anyways there is a real simple solution here for me. I just won't by any ARM products. I'll probably think about building a new computer next year, and at the top of my list is making sure I can disalbe secure boot or import a custom certificate. Problem solved. I'll reserve my rage until this no longer becomes an option.

So what does that mean for OEM hardware?; say I buy a motherboard from ebuyer does it come locked down to windows already without the ability to edit the keys? or does it comes with the secure boot disabled? or no keys. How do I then install windows 8? Do I have to enter the key manually? Does windows 8 not install on hardware I build myself?

Seems to me like this only affects machines designed for windows in the first place; in reality most ppl probably buy an existing machine and re purpose it for linux but I've only ever done that once and since then always built my own pcs from scratch.

So what does that mean for OEM hardware?; say I buy a motherboard from ebuyer does it come locked down to windows already without the ability to edit the keys? or does it comes with the secure boot disabled? or no keys. How do I then install windows 8? Do I have to enter the key manually? Does windows 8 not install on hardware I build myself?

Seems to me like this only affects machines designed for windows in the first place; in reality most ppl probably buy an existing machine and re purpose it for linux but I've only ever done that once and since then always built my own pcs from scratch.

Well unless you can build your own ARM tablet, which you can't. As far as x86, you will be able to install the same way as always. Every motherboard is going to come with the MS Cert already in the system, so it will just work. If you want to install something else, you just need to add the cert.

This whole thread is about a lock down on ARM. ARM is already locked down by every other manufacturer, but somehow this is only a story because it is Windows.

What is the difference between ARM tablets and x86 tablets? Its a distinction with no difference. EXCEPT that MS is an established monopoly in 'desktop computers' which run x86. Their main business is selling operating systems. If they, in the next version of their operating system, mandated that vendors buying their product put in place encryption to prohibit competing products (linux, mostly) I can't imagine how fast the Department of Justice would be on their ass.

However, ARM based tablets and smartphones are (arguably) a different product (not a 'real computer) and they clearly aren't a monopoly there, so they can get away with basically prohibiting a competing product (Android mostly, but also Meego, standard linux) from ever doing business with the vendors they sell Windows 8 to. Its brazen, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, but maybe, maybe not blatantly illegal.

This distinction between their monopoly desktop market where they have to watch themselves and the tablet market where they can go full-evil and extract exorbitant patent rents, sue android vendors, and make hardware vendors PROHIBIT alternative operating systems from working is the only one that makes sense for why ARM and x86 are different. MS has to allow desktop users to remove Windows 8, they expect ARM users to be tablet and smartphone users, and they can get away with more in that market since they aren't a monopoly.

I have nothing to back this up but my own theories, but absent any other explanation of why ARM and x86 processors are treated differently when theres no good reason to do so, its the only thing that makes sense to me.

Say it with me now: Secure Boot is in the UEFI spec. Microsoft is not doing anything. If there is a detriment to linux, it will be OEMs that are at fault for not providing the ability to unlock the boot sequence or allow importing of custom keys.

OEMs which do what you say, will be in violation with the certification agreement. The thing that Microsoft is doing, is demanding that manufacturers who want Windows certification, implement a crippled subset of the UEFI spec, such that someone other than users must be the sold authority on what software the hardware runs. The UEFI spec _does_ _not_ say that users' interests _must_ be secondary to other parties' interests.

This whole thread is about a lock down on ARM. ARM is already locked down by every other manufacturer, but somehow this is only a story because it is Windows.

It's a story because Microsoft is mandating complete lockdown, rather than mandating that the UEFI secure boot be functionally equivalent to its x86 counterpart. I don't recall many people caring for the lock down that is being applied already in the ARM space (well, people complain then are shouted down using the same tired arguments we see here.)

This, combined with Microsoft's ongoing scam in the patent space against Android, just reeks of MS using its size and market power to force a competitor out and claim a growing sector of computing for itself.

This whole thread is about a lock down on ARM. ARM is already locked down by every other manufacturer, but somehow this is only a story because it is Windows.

It's a story because Microsoft is mandating complete lockdown, rather than mandating that the UEFI secure boot be functionally equivalent to its x86 counterpart. I don't recall many people caring for the lock down that is being applied already in the ARM space (well, people complain then are shouted down using the same tired arguments we see here.)

This, combined with Microsoft's ongoing scam in the patent space against Android, just reeks of MS using its size and market power to force a competitor out and claim a growing sector of computing for itself.

Like I said, it likely has far more to do with being able to provide services such as Netflix, than trying to squash the tiny modding community. I'd still rather see some actual journalism here rather than the link bait they are using to rile you up.

I love all the articles about devices THAT DON'T EXIST YET but are strangely quiet about Apple devices. Can someone please point me to any sort of protests that occurred about not being able to install Linux or Windows on an iPhone when it was released almost five years ago? Or any version of the iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad since then?

I guess I don't care about this much because I want my mobiles devices, especially my phone, to just work. Every time. I'm not going to do anything to screw it up. Freedom of OS choice on a gadget is meaningless to me.

The big assumption here is that if one vendor has the keys to the kingdom, everything will (magically) just work. Historically, this has not been the case. There has never been an OS, and certainly not a MS OS, that hasn't been in need of some tweaking to get it to function as advertised.

I see this as nothing more that an artificial barrier to competition. There may be no viable competing ARM OS now, but if the boot loader is effectively locked, there never will be. Linux may not have won the desktop, but it is making a hell of a showing in the server room, on mobile devices (via Android) and on the Top 500 supercomputer list. None of this would have been possible is the IBM PC had a locked boot loader. We can never be sure what the future will bring, but locked boot loaders effectively close off some possibilities.

What can't MS issue certificates to 3d parties like we do with SSL certificates?

What are you talking about? This is the problem with the FOSS religion. If you don't like the product than don't buy it but you don't get to dictate what I and the rest of the heathens want. There is no mandate from the goverenment requiring you to buy these computers. MS is not the goverenment. MS does not have an army or police force. You don't like the product that their partners and MS put together don't buy it. If you are able to convert another half percent of the market maybe someone will bother to cater to the one percenters.

This has nothing to do with religion. This has everything to do with Microsoft attempting to restrict the market in tablets. Just because a vendor, rightly, knows that they need to support Microsoft's OS, doesn't mean they should be precluded from allow the user to install something else. Or even have the capability to dual boot. Or a variety of other options that Microsoft is taking away from the device vendors, just so they can have a compatibility sticker.

This whole response is a religious response. MS has no control over the market in tablets. Even if MS did there are simple workarounds to this problem namely installing signed linux, using intel chips or don't buy one. Just because Linux users have the GLP3 license does not mean the rest of the world has to give up security for its political manifesto.

I've yet to buy a machine so I could get the OS that was on it. It's always been to get the hardware; and whatever OS was there was, more or less, irrelevant to me. I could use it or replace it... because the hardware belonged to me and not to the provider of the OS. Anything that inhibits my ability to do this--whether it was my intent to do so or not--will not be purchased. Period.

Seconded! If the argument that mobile computing devices are not 'computers' is actually carrying weight, then that argument needs to be reevaluated. Seriously. The user community would be up in arms if a Dell or HP or IBM laptop was sold with a 'locked BIOS' preventing OS upgrades. It would be a joke! Why then do our heldheld computers (with many of the same peripherals only bundled in a smaller package) restrict our ability to upgrade as we, the owners of those devices, see fit?

Computers are no longer special. They are appliances. They are no more cool than a wash machine or maybe a microwave. You don't root your wash machine and you don't mod your microwave, so why the hell would you root or mod your phone?

_Your_ computer isn't cool, because you're not interested in things. If you had used cars, instead of washing machines, as your appliance example, you would have instantly realized that some people still _do_ change their appliances instead of throwing them away and buying a new one whenever they want maintenance other than what the manufacturer imagined or wanted to allow.

I think you need to go watch a few episodes of "Scrapheap Challenge" (aka "Junkward Wars"), or even just go make a stone axe out of a rock that no manufacturer ever intended to be used as an axe. Or go buy a plant with proprietary genes and illegally propagate it. ;-) Just give it a try and make _sure_ there's really no spark left in you.

But whether you want to do things or not, you ought to feel insulted that someone else gets to make the choice.

I think it's particularly ironic someone would say computers are "solved" in the context of mobiles, where every single product on the market basically _sucks_. Mobile computing is about as "solved" in 2012 as desktops were solved in 1980.

This is a MUCH bigger deal than most people realize! What we are facing here is the END of general purpose computing! Microsoft, along with Apple, want to control every aspect of your computing experience. They dont want you running "rogue" software, and indeed, Windows 8 will feature an "app store", similar to the one Apple has, that will sell you all of your software. Don't want to run "offical" apps? Want to run your own software? Too bad...In the future, unless you have software provided by the "app store", it wont run on your PC! Locked bootloaders and the inability to run any alternative software on the machine YOU PURCHASE are just methods of enforcing these policies. We are already half way to this future now...just look at how Apple and Microsoft are policing smartphone software! I say we should all boycott ANY AND ALL hardware that have these restrictions! Its OUR internet, and OUR computing...dont let these monstrous corporations with their "Big Brother" policies gain control!

Internal memos point to a December 22nd release date for Windows 8. There is a good reason for this...they actually dont have a product to ship, and they are disguising that fact with the End of the World! /s

Well the removal of options certainly promotes stupid even if it doesnt get Julia sent to room 101.

It does make sense from a business standpoint though, its a pitty the business standpoint seems to be the 'correct' stand point in our world.

There is no removal of anything since most ARM tablets are already locked down. If they did this for x86 tablets (real computers) it would be a different story. Ill be buying an x86 tablet and Ill boot whatever I want on it like any self respecting power user. Would you buy an iPad? I wouldn't.

Well the removal of options certainly promotes stupid even if it doesnt get Julia sent to room 101.

It does make sense from a business standpoint though, its a pitty the business standpoint seems to be the 'correct' stand point in our world.

There is no removal of anything since most ARM tablets are already locked down. If they did this for x86 tablets (real computers) it would be a different story. Ill be buying an x86 tablet and Ill boot whatever I want on it like any self respecting power user. Would you buy an iPad? I wouldn't.

And ARM devices aren't computers?

Of course not.

Are iPhones computers?Are thin clients computers?

Putting a larger screen on an iOS or android phone doesnt make it a computer.

x86 Windows 8 systems must allow users to add and remove certificates from the firmware's certificate store. … Microsoft calls this "custom mode", in contrast to "standard mode", that includes only the Microsoft certificate.

x86 Windows 8 systems must also allow secure boot to be turned off completely, so that no certificate verification is performed at all.

This is good news, but can I have a citation? Preferably from the Microsoft website.

The opening sentence of the article links to the documentation in question.

I think the wording there is more "microsoft will allow OEMs to (oh so very optionally) provide UEFI implementations that allow third party certificates to be installed, or turned of signed boot completely".

I don't know why you think that. The document is freely available to all, the wording is clear and unambiguous (on this point, at least), and your opinion is simply wrong.

Gah, i must be more sleepy than i feel. I could have sworn the article did not read "must" regarding "custom mode".

Say it with me now: Secure Boot is in the UEFI spec. Microsoft is not doing anything.

Of course they are. They are prohibiting the device maker from attaching a "Made for Win 8" sticker unless the ability to unlock the boot sequence is disabled. Microsoft is 100% the instigator of this restriction. The UEFI spec allows the boot sequence to be unlocked, so Microsoft's imposing of this restriction has nothing whatsoever to do with any UEFI limitations or requirements.

BioTurboNick wrote:

If there is a detriment to linux, it will be OEMs that are at fault for not providing the ability to unlock the boot sequence or allow importing of custom keys.

That's only partly true. Microsoft is also at fault for providing a marketing incentive for OEMs to lock down the boot sequence.

That "Made for Win 8" sticker has a lot of market value. Windows is saying to the OEM: "No lockdown? Then no sticker." Yes, you can fault the OEM for acting against the customer's best interests, but Microsoft must take the primary blame here.

This is all really irrelevant, isn't it? I mean, on x64/86, you can add any additional signatures and load any OS you want, while keeping Windows 8 intact. On ARM, instead of buying a MS branded tablet, you could simply by an open one compatible with the ARM Windows 8 image, and use any OS you want up until the point you chose to install Windows for ARM. I'm sure on open tablets, there will be some method for completely flashing the EUFI and ROM and starting clean, even after installing Windows, it just may not be possible to have dual booting. Honestly, I see very, very few cases where someone might want a tablet/appliance and have multiple OS installed on it concurrently (with ROM boot storage, that's pretty much not even possible today). X86 is a different matter, but tablets, it's a pick and stick with it OS solution. Android needsa to be open because manufacturer's drop out of support and having the ability to load in someone else's rom is important, but windows will stay updated on a generic platform, so that's a non-issue.